How Eager Are Progressives to Elect Senator Rehberg?

I’m troubled by a piece written by JC over at 4and20 blackbirds attacking Jon Tester for allegedly betraying a series of promises he made to Paul Richards in order to earn the latter’s endorsement in 2006. It’s part of a troubling, developing [pullquote]

Every piece self-righteously attacking Senator Tester for his perceived flaws and failure to live up to each progressive’s notion of right and wrong only decreases his chances of winning election in 2012.

Are progressives really willing to let absolutist litmus tests lead to the election of Senator Rehberg?

[/pullquote] trend in which progressives seem a lot more interested in tearing down a moderate-left Senator like Tester than in attacking a troglodyte-right candidate like Representative Rehberg—and it’s dangerous.

JC’s post rests on two ideas: that Paul Richards had huge importance in the 2006 election and that Senator Tester lacks integrity.

Let’s look at the Richards myth first.

JC writes:

And we start the story with a poll: John Morrison +1%.

That was the number that was staring at Democrats a few weeks before the June 6th, 2006 Democrat primary for Senate in Montana. Coupled with that number were other polls that showed Morrison at a serious disadvantage compared to Jon Tester in a one-to-one matchup against 3-time incumbent Republican Senator Conrad Burns.

and

The rest is history. Jon Tester won a deciding primary victory over John Morrison. Paul Richard’s supporters, while relatively few in number, were a very active and participative group of people. They knew how to organize and talk policy. How to motivate people to register to vote, turn out and vote Dem. They were a politicians dream: willing to give funds, time and energy to a campaign when it was most needed.

JC’s piece depends on two narratives unsupported by the fact: 1) that Paul Richards somehow swung the 2006 primary to Jon Tester and that 2) Paul Richards somehow shifted the general election from Burns to Tester, swinging Democrats into power nationally.

The first is demonstrably false. Paul Richards’s endorsement had absolutely nothing to do with Senator Tester’s victory over John Morrison. Of Richards’ 4,000 supporters, half still ended up voting for him, and Tester eked out a margin of almost 30,000 votes over Morrison. As important as Paul Richards wanted to be in that race, his role was absolutely minimal. A better ground game and staff for Senator Tester, combined with ill-timed revelations about his opponent, sealed Tester’s victory before Richards’s endorsement, which came less than week before the election, could matter at all.

The second narrative, that Richards supporters were the reason Tester won the general, also doesn’t hold water. Am I to believe that these progressives were going to stay home and let Conrad Burns win another election? That this tiny group of people had such a disproportionate impact on the election? It’s just hard to accept and unsupported by anything other than self-aggrandizement, and this from someone who admired Paul Richards.

On the broader issue of the progressive left’s attacks against Senator Tester, I just don’t get it. I can’t shake a stick in a forest without hitting a copy-pasted post from Matt Koehler attacking Senator Tester for his Wilderness Bill; I can’t stop hearing about how Senator Tester is personally going to be responsible for the extinction of wolves in Montana, and I can’t stop reading about how Senator Tester has somehow betrayed progressives.

The fact remains that Senator Tester is who he represented himself to be, not the person we progressives want him to be all the time. Montana’s not going to elect Bernie Sanders; it’s not going to elect Russ Feingold (hell, Wisconsin doesn’t even elect Russ Feingold anymore). What we can do is to support a Senator who looks out for the working class, did his best to create a Wilderness Bill that balanced environmental protection with political and economic reality in the state, and who has worked to protect small businesses and family farms here in Montana.

He’s a good Senator and a good man. It’s easy to let passion obscure those simple truths.

He’s not a perfect Senator. I have disagreed with his position on a number issues, from the DREAM Act to unemployment, but he’s largely on our side, and certainly a better choice than the alternative. Every piece self-righteously attacking Senator Tester for his perceived flaws and failure to live up to each progressive’s notion of right and wrong only decreases his chances of winning election in 2012.

Are progressives really willing to let absolutist litmus tests lead to the election of Senator Rehberg?

JC writes:

And now Tester’s supporters want to make the 2012 election all about the left not criticizing their incumbent senator, and rallying together and being polite–rallying around some mushy and mythical center created by the teabaggers attempting to pull politics and politicians as far right as possible.

No. This Tester supporter thinks that criticizing policy decisions and pushing for more progressive outcomes is not only everyone’s right, but responsibility. But there is a profound difference between policy disagreement and character assassination, between observation and obsession.

Progressives who want a Senator we can agree with most of the time would do well to remember that.

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.

About the author

Don Pogreba

Don Pogreba is an eighteen-year teacher of English, former debate coach, and loyal, if often sad, fan of the San Diego Padres and Portland Timbers. He spends far too many hours of his life working at school and on his small business, Big Sky Debate.
His work has appeared in Politico and Rewire.
In the past few years, travel has become a priority, whether it's a road trip to some little town in Montana or a museum of culture in Ísafjörður, Iceland.

235 Comments

Participate in this conversation via emailGet only replies to your comment, the best of the rest, as well as a daily recap of all comments on this post. No more than a few emails daily, which you can reply to/unsubscribe from directly from your inbox.

Craig – I didn’t mean to insult. I know you’re an astute observer of foreign policy, which is why I’m asking you to see the difference. Forces arrayed in the Balkans were deployed with casualty prevention in mind – they performed their job, and the area is now largely peaceful and aligned towards Europe. Bush’s invasions alienated our allies, cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and accomplished little.

As to sitting out – I largely agree with you, as you’ll recall from when we argued this with JC and lizard. I wish Clinton had had the political fortitude to lay it on the line to save lives. If Bush had stationed troops in Darfur rather than Iraq, my opinion of him, Republicans, and US foreign policy would have been very different. Sadly, while I would like to see a foreign policy based around protecting human rights and gaining the respect of populations instead of temporary governments, neither Republicans nor Democrats really follow this strategy; thus, I prefer the Democrats overly cautious habits to the Republicans overly destructive ones.

Craig – I didn’t mean to insult. I know you’re an astute observer of foreign policy, which is why I’m asking you to see the difference. Forces arrayed in the Balkans were deployed with casualty prevention in mind – they performed their job, and the area is now largely peaceful and aligned towards Europe. Bush’s invasions alienated our allies, cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and accomplished little.

As to sitting out – I largely agree with you, as you’ll recall from when we argued this with JC and lizard. I wish Clinton had had the political fortitude to lay it on the line to save lives. If Bush had stationed troops in Darfur rather than Iraq, my opinion of him, Republicans, and US foreign policy would have been very different. Sadly, while I would like to see a foreign policy based around protecting human rights and gaining the respect of populations instead of temporary governments, neither Republicans nor Democrats really follow this strategy; thus, I prefer the Democrats overly cautious habits to the Republicans overly destructive ones.

Republicans are generally more selective and cautious about the wars they fight.
There was the Civil War, of course–in which nobody could complain of foreign involvement.
Then there were Reagan’s little aids for guerrilla movements in central America–and the one in whicvh he took over the University in Grenada. Poppy had his Desert Storm which was greater fun to

Republicans are generally more selective and cautious about the wars they fight.
There was the Civil War, of course–in which nobody could complain of foreign involvement.
Then there were Reagan’s little aids for guerrilla movements in central America–and the one in whicvh he took over the University in Grenada. Poppy had his Desert Storm which was greater fun to

Ten of thousands of us want Tester to fail, and we will go to extremes to make that happen! How dare he throw wolves, or any wildlife for that matter, under the bus, AGAINST THE WISHES OF THOSE SAME TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, AND GUT THE ESA? He is not worthy to lick the boots of anyone – right or left – and, he can revel in his dirty deal with Barack O’Butcher, another wildlife hater, and when he loses, we will be jumpin for joy! He is a pompous arrogant SOB who, becasue of his backdoor deal, can now be thrown under the bus wiith the wolves! He is no longer needed, and, although Rehberg is a slime, it would be hard to quantify who is worse!

Ten of thousands of us want Tester to fail, and we will go to extremes to make that happen! How dare he throw wolves, or any wildlife for that matter, under the bus, AGAINST THE WISHES OF THOSE SAME TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, AND GUT THE ESA? He is not worthy to lick the boots of anyone – right or left – and, he can revel in his dirty deal with Barack O’Butcher, another wildlife hater, and when he loses, we will be jumpin for joy! He is a pompous arrogant SOB who, becasue of his backdoor deal, can now be thrown under the bus wiith the wolves! He is no longer needed, and, although Rehberg is a slime, it would be hard to quantify who is worse!

This is a really good read for me. Must agree that you are one of the coolest blogger I ever saw. Thanks for posting this useful information. This was just what I was on looking for. I’ll come back to this blog for sure!

I am very enjoyed for this blog. Its an informative topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you. Thanks.

Does your site have a contact page? I’m having a tough time locating it but, I’d like to shoot you an email. I’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it expand over time.